Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Law: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908

Section: IX, Rule 9, XVII, Rule 3

SUMMARY
 

The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed a petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution by the petitioner against the judgment of the Balochistan High Court dated 24th July 2024.

Background of the Case:
The petitioner had purchased a plot/house in Quetta from respondent No.2 through a general power of attorney dated 16.09.2019. However, respondent No.1 also claimed ownership of the same property, stating that he had purchased it from respondent No.2 via a general power of attorney dated 12.09.2019.
Legal disputes arose, leading to the consolidation of suits and formulation of issues on 19.02.2020.
The petitioner failed multiple times to produce witnesses for cross-examination, despite being given repeated opportunities by the trial court.
The trial court ultimately closed the petitioner’s right to present evidence except for his own statement, through orders dated 29.08.2022 and 19.12.2022.
The petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9, CPC, which was dismissed on 15.03.2023.
A revision petition and a constitutional petition were also dismissed by the High Court.
Supreme Court's Ruling:
The court found that the petitioner had been granted multiple opportunities to present evidence but repeatedly failed to do so.
The petitioner's conduct indicated an attempt to prolong litigation without final determination.
The court cited precedents emphasizing that litigants must adhere to procedural rules and cannot delay cases indefinitely.
It held that procedural laws aim to ensure swift justice and that courts must enforce their orders strictly.
Consequently, the court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing that litigation should not be delayed by non-compliant parties. The petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that courts must maintain procedural discipline to prevent abuse of legal processes.
ORDER
SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 24th July, 2024 passed in constitutional petition No.1056 of 2023 by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, the petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2.    Succinctly, the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration, temporary and permanent injunction against the respondents by maintaining that Quetta Development Authority (QDA) announced a housing scheme Samungli and a plot No.92/C measuring 1800 sq.ft. was allotted to one Iqbal Rashid, after payment of entire amount and fulfillment of codal formalities, QDA executed an agreement dated 10.10.1983. Allegedly, Iqbal Rashid moved an application to defendant/respondent No.3 for issuance of site plan and building permit, which were issued by the concerned officer on 13.06.1994 and after completion of house, the defendant/respondent No.3 also granted

completion certificate dated 14.01.1994. The said house was later on purchased by defendant/respondent No.2 namely Muhammad Khalid Khan from Iqbal Rashid and also made a request for transfer letter dated 08.10.2011; the defendant/respondent No.3 legally transferred the above said plot/house in the name of the defendant/respondent No.2 on 12.11.2011. Thereafter, the present petitioner purchased the said plot/house from the defendant/respondent No.2 and paid the entire consideration, in return the defendant/respondent No.2 executed general power of attorney dated 16.09.2019 in favour of the petitioner and handed over peaceful possession to the petitioner. The petitioner demolished the dilapidated house and willing to reconstruct the house, also employed a Chowkidar for the said plot; however, during new construction the defendant/respondent No.1, purportedly, without any cogent reason started interference in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit property; hence, the suit.
3.    The respondent/defendant No.1 contested the suit by submitting written statement and claimed to have purchased the suit property from the defendant/respondent No.2 through execution of general power of attorney dated 12.09.2019 and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Another suit No.65/2020 was consolidated with the suit under discussion and the divergence in pleadings of the parties was summed up into consolidated issues on 19.02.2020 and petitioner was directed to produce his evidence, who only examined his witness namely Mustafa Advocate as P.W.1 but cross examination on the said witness was reserved. Later on, the petitioner despite affording numerous opportunities by the trial Court could not produce the already examined witness (P.W.1) for the purpose of cross examination and remaining evidence, therefore, trial Court closed his right of production of evidence vide order dated 29.08.2022; however, later on, on filing application for recalling the said order dated 29.08.2022, the petitioner was allowed to produce his witnesses/evidence vide order dated 12.09.2022 subject to cost of Rs.4000/- but in-spite of that he failed to avail the leniency shown by the trial Court and could not bring his witnesses; therefore, the trial Court again struck off his right to lead evidence except his own statement vide order dated 19.12.2022. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recalling the above said order dated 19.12.2022